News
Brantford-Brant

Controversial OMB to be scrapped

There’s joy from London politicians, but worry from a development veteran, over the province’s plan for “transformational” change in how Ontario cities will be built.

The change, announced Tuesday, may have the most dramatic local impact on the London Plan, the citizen-driven, all-encompassing blueprint for London’s growth that faces dozens of appeals, many, from London’s biggest developers.

Legislation to be introduced later this month would give municipalities more power over building their communities, by scrapping the controversial and powerful Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)and replacing it with much less powerful local planning appeal tribunals.

The move would mean decisions made by city planners and politicians would be less liable to be challenged and overturned by a board because of developers’ challenges.

The legislation also would prohibit appeals of official plans — city blueprints for growth — that have been approved by the province, such as the London Plan. Provincial officials were unable to answer Tuesday how the legislation would affect appeals already in process.

“I think it is transformational. It is a significant change,” London’ Ward 7 Coun. Josh Morgan said of the proposed legislation.

“This is a big win for fans of local decision making. Voters should be able to hold city council and local planners accountable for the decisions they make.”

Municipalities in Ontario have been fighting for the changes for a long time, said Ward 12 Coun. Tanya Park, who chairs council’s planning committee.

“The more decisions made locally, the better it is for the community. It’s a big win for municipalities,” she said.

But London lawyer Alan Patton, a veteran of OMB hearings on behalf of London builders, said he has concerns about the new, local tribunal.

“I think they (the tribunals) could very well become more political. Who will the members be? Will council appoint them? That has major ramifications for political interference.”

Patton has been appearing before the OMB for more than 30 years and said the board’s decisions have largely followed sound planning principles.

“I can’t think of many OMB decisions related to development that had an adverse impact on the surrounding land or environment,” he said.

Unlike planners and politicians, OMB members are not influenced by political pressure brought by Londoners, Patton said.

The OMB, an independent adjudicative body, conducts hearings and makes decisions on planning and development matters, including issues relating to zoning bylaws, subdivision plans and ward boundaries.

The new local planning appeal tribunal would only make decisions on whether or not a municipality has followed its official land-use plans. If it hasn’t, the issue will be sent back to the municipality for reconsideration. Only if the municipality fails to come to a decision, or fails to follow the planning process a second time, would a full hearing be held, with the tribunal making a final decision.

That will mean fewer municipal decisions can be overturned than under the existing process, in which each dispute is treated as if it were new, disregarding the decision the local government has made.

The status quo has long been criticized as tilted in favour of developers, who’ve been able to appeal municipalities’ decisions and ultimately build something more profitable, such as a taller condo building with more units than a local council wanted.

“They, perhaps, it’s fair to say, might have preferred status quo, but we don’t agree,” said Mauro. “We don’t think that’s the way to go.”

John Fleming, London’s chief planner, praised the proposed changes.

“These announced changes mean London’s planning decisions rest with our elected council, rather than a single person from the Ontario Municipal Board,” he said.

The legislation would also create new agencies providing support for citizens who want to participate in the appeal process.

“Often, neighbourhoods and members of the public do not have the skills nor resources to participate meaningfully in the appeal process,” Fleming said. “This often shuts them out of a process they have been involved with extensively, up until the time of the appeal.”